Monthly Archives: May 2011


The Power of Country Archetypes is defined by Work

P=W/t

Work implies the capacity of displacing facts in nature in order to generate a usable added value for a society. Therefore it is implicit that the fundamentals of work are consistent with the different levels of archetypes.

The purpose of work in elites of influential archetypes is to generate added value in their societies. To do so their active function is driven by the transforming of nature and the energy conservation function is the need to overcome resource scarcity.

If we see it at an operational level we can define that:

The maximal strategy of the elites is to transform nature driven by the energy focused on knowledge and the personal need that sustains their actions is the self-affirmation of their deeds.

The minimum strategy to overcome resource scarcity is driven by the energy of their capacity to produce and the personal need that sustains their actions is the capacity to manage the time to make things happen.

Access or request a Unicist Tweetinar on this subject at:
http://www.academic.unicist.org/unicist_tweetinars.shtml

Learn more about the trend of ontology based solutions for businesses:
http://www.unicist.net/obs.shtml

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute is the major research organization in the world in its specialty based on more than 3,500 ontological researches in complexity sciences, developed since 1976 until September 2010, applied to individual, institutional and social evolution. The applicative researches are based on the discovery of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature and the consequent Unicist Ontology of Evolution.

Share

Unicist Ontological Structure of the Culture of USA

This is the first archetype that is being presented to apprehend influential cultures in the world. In this case, the objective is to provide information on the ontological structure of the culture of the USA in order to foster adaptation to the real world.

The Archetype of the USA is a paradigmatic example of how a culture can be leading in the world while strengthening its identity.

For this case, it is strongly recommended listening to the lecture you can find at: http://www.unicistinstitute.net/blog/unicist-future-research-the-archetype-of-the-usa/

Based on the research on the Archetype of the USA, its purpose is growth and its active function is given by the propensity to dare while achieving its “dream” within a credibility context.

The Maximal strategy implies that the culture is driven by daring actions to achieve its cultural “dream” within an institutionalized context.

The catalyst of the evolution of the American archetype is its institutionalization that accelerates its evolution. Institutionalization is materialized in the democratic rules of the society.

The icon of the cultural dream is the American Flag. Daring implies doing in terms of concrete operational actions to achieve growth and surpass the well-being achieved by the preceding generations.

The social pressure towards growth within a context of being a leading culture in the world generates uncertainty in the coming generations that fosters the need for addictions to avoid the responsibility to produce growth.

The minimum strategy of the archetype fosters thinking, driven by the personal objectives and within the limits of the personal credibility. That is why the USA archetype includes a multi-minority approach.

This minimum strategy provides the necessary context to develop hard technologies that sustain the economic activities of the maximal strategy.

Personal credibility is the entropy inhibitor of the American archetype. As wealth sustains the perception of security, personal credibility requires having solved the necessary financial situation that makes an individual credible.

Daring, dreaming, credibility and thinking integrated to achieve growth require a strong ethical environment that needs to be sustained by the judiciary system. Lying is unacceptable because it destroys the credibility and transparency of the archetype.

Understanding and respecting the archetype of the USA will be extremely useful to develop global and local businesses.

Access or request a Unicist Tweetinar on this subject at:
http://www.academic.unicist.org/unicist_tweetinars.shtml

Learn more about the trend of ontology based solutions for businesses:
http://www.unicist.net/obs.shtml

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute is the major research organization in the world in its specialty based on more than 3,500 ontological researches in complexity sciences, developed since 1976 until September 2010, applied to individual, institutional and social evolution. The applicative researches are based on the discovery of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature and the consequent Unicist Ontology of Evolution.

Share

See to believe or believe to see

Surviving requires seeing to believe

Conservative thinking requires seeing to believe. That is why when a new concept is being discussed and an individual asks for an analogical benchmark, it is because s/he is avoiding entering a new field.

Seeing to believe is necessary to deal with operational thinking. When operation has to be done it is necessary to deal with a credibility based on seeing. Seeing is used in a wide sense considering all the aspects that deal with sensory experiences to apprehend reality.

Seeing to believe is based on the past experiences of individuals to generate the credibility of present actions.

Forward-chaining thinking is the secure approach to reality which avoids having a high level of inner freedom because the external reality is apprehended through sensory experiences. The use of sensory information avoids the need to make decisions based on internal freedom.

1 + 1 = 2 is an arithmetic metaphor of forward-chaining thinking.

Minimum strategies, which need to ensure survival, require forward-chaining thinking and using the sensory experiences to believe.

Expansive actions require believing to see

Expansive actions require providing additional added value to the environment and thus they are implicitly innovative. The innovation is implicit in the additional added value.

Believing to see is necessary for conceptual thinking. Concepts are essential. Therefore they need to be approached based on abstract beliefs that need to be confirmed in their manifested operational actions.

Conceptual thinking implies reflection that goes beyond the sensory experiences of individuals. Homological experiences are the benchmarks to be used to apprehend new action fields.

Believing to see is an approach to the nature of a reality in order to influence the future evolution and develop present actions.

Backward-chaining thinking is necessary to approach any activity that deals with adaptive systems and complexity. The oneness can only be approached with backward-chaining thinking processes which are integrated in the unicist reflection process.

2 = Infinite Solutions is an arithmetic metaphor of backward-chaining thinking.

It requires the use of a high level of inner freedom, because there are no sensory parameters to confirm the validity of a process. That is why a “believing to see” approach needs to be sustained by destructive and non-destructive pilot tests.

Maximal strategies which allow expansion beyond the present boundaries of an activity require the use of backward-chaining thinking and using individuals’ beliefs that need to be validated with sensory experiences.

Doing within adaptive systems

Actions are the demonstration of a decision. There are unconscious, intuitive and conscious decisions. All actions include all the aspects but when we talk about “Doing” we imply actions ruled by conscious behavior.

Influencing adaptive systems requires integrating “believing to see and seeing to believe”.

But it has to happen following the ontological evolution law. An individual needs to believe in order to be able to see and then confirm what has been seen in order to validate the belief.

Managing adaptive systems implies beginning to apprehend the possibilities that can be achieved. To do so it is necessary to use backward-chaining thinking in order to apprehend the solution in its oneness. Therefore the first step to deal with adaptive systems requires the use of inner freedom to apprehend the actual reality. It requires “believing to see”.

This allows developing a maximal strategy that makes expansion possible.

After the concept has been grasped and used to develop a maximal strategy it is necessary to ensure survival developing minimum strategies. Minimum strategies are operation driven and use forward-chaining thinking as a tool that requires sensory experiences to confirm the validity of actions. Therefore it requires a “seeing to believe” approach.

The level of inner freedom required is minimal because actions are driven by sensory experiences.

Doing implies having the necessary inner freedom to be able to “believe to see” and the necessary discipline to follow a method to do, based on “seeing to believe”.

Businesses require “believing to see” to be defined, because they happen in the future that cannot be perceived through sensory experiences, and “seeing to be believe” in order to be administrated.

In business “seeing to believe” is a fallacy.

In operational activities “believing to see” is a utopia.

Learn more about the trend of ontology based solutions for businesses:
http://www.unicist.net/obs.shtml

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute is the major research organization in the world in its specialty based on more than 3,500 researches in complexity science, developed since 1976 until September 2010,  applied to individual, institutional and social evolution. The applicative researches are based on the discovery of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature and the consequent Unicist Ontology of Evolution.

 

Share

Unicist Ontology of the Artificial Life of Institutions

Institutions are entities with artificial life. They behave as a species, meaning that their goal is to expand and perdure in time. This is self-evident when we consider a Nation as an institution.

Therefore, institutions have an ontology that is homologous to the one of biological entities: http://www.theoryofevolution.net/blog/the-unicist-ontology-of-biological-entities/

Their purpose is permanence which requires having transcendent goals while satisfying the personal goals of their members.

They need to minimize the energy they consume. To do so the integration of their adaptive systems with their administrative systems is based on a natural organization that considers the environment, the technologies and the business.

Their adaptation is sustained by their strategy including maximal strategies to expand and minimum strategies to survive.

The understanding of the ontology of institutions considered as beings with artificial life allows, on the one hand, accessing a metamodel to build institutions and, on the other hand, it allows managing their evolution.

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute is the major research organization in the world in its specialty based on more than 3,500 researches in complexity science, developed since 1976 until September 2010,  applied to individual, institutional and social evolution. The applicative researches are based on the discovery of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature and the consequent Unicist Ontology of Evolution.

 

Share